PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Hi Jon,

The wording used is "the original should be available for the hearing"

Some creditors will try and use Carey to convince you that they only need supply a reconstruction, but the comments in Carey regarding reconstruction where a document no longer exists, relates I beleive to S77-78 requests.

The idea with CPUTR is to get a response from the creditor, one way or the other. If they do respond stating that there is an original in their hands, and here is a copy, then a short response back to them, reminding them that it is an offence to mislead ( criminal I beleive) is all that is required. Always have the last letter on file.

Also, while non-compliance with an information request under CCA is no longer a criminal offence, non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002, and enforcement proceedings could be issued under that Act if considered appropriate.

Vint

Thanks Vint
Still overthinking this one, where exactly does it say the original should be available for the hearing?
So many cases, so many different guidelines/ammendments etc my brain is about to explode

Still not sure if I should make token payments to LV and Cap1.
Last letter received from LV was confirmation that I had asked them to suspend payments for 6 months and had passed it to the compliance dpt
Cap1 As I said Niddy said EN but I did post off missing prescribed terms and just sent CPUTR. Not had any response (they got the letter on 5/5/2012) . They also had a letter asking for suspension of payments but no acknowledgement (was in same envelope as CCA request and changing authority back to me from DMC) .

Thoughts please

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Well I am at home tomorrow for the first time in over a week so no doubt will have bucket loads of mail. Once that is all sorted I will get my payments set up to Cap1 and LV(DLC) whatever they are . Then I will get letters posted off and see what they say but that might be in a day or two.

Thanks for all the advice. Frankly as some of you know, I may have nothing to lose (no I am not about to drop dead)

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

To be honest Jon, you have nothing to lose by sending the CPUTR letter off..... but you have to remember that some companies will issue court papers anyway, on the basis that what they have is "enforceable", albeit in fiche format, if you get what I mean....

In other words.... test the water with CPUTR if you want to.... but maintain token payments while you're doing it, just in case.

Then let us dissect their response(s).

[vint1954]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Well it's official I HATE YOU ALL. You confuse the hell out of me

Anyway did someone say that in reality the creditors need to produce the original in court and how original is original?
So if someone receives what appears to be an agreement is it worth using this to find out if they do actually have the original

Talking or Mr "check your CRA file" that and so many others talk so much bollox. On that basis I assume that Niddy using the T word must be a term of endearment

Hi Jon,

The wording used is "the original should be available for the hearing"

Some creditors will try and use Carey to convince you that they only need supply a reconstruction, but the comments in Carey regarding reconstruction where a document no longer exists, relates I beleive to S77-78 requests.

The idea with CPUTR is to get a response from the creditor, one way or the other. If they do respond stating that there is an original in their hands, and here is a copy, then a short response back to them, reminding them that it is an offence to mislead ( criminal I beleive) is all that is required. Always have the last letter on file.

Also, while non-compliance with an information request under CCA is no longer a criminal offence, non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002, and enforcement proceedings could be issued under that Act if considered appropriate.

Vint

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

On that basis I assume that Niddy using the T word must be a term of endearment

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

I s'pose it must be confusing it times..... but you love us all really...

The original is the original. Not a microfiche copy of an original.... or a re-constituted version of what the original would have looked like but the ORIGINAL that you allegedly signed. In addition to that, if you can remember not signing one, then they can't have one, can they?

Have you received what looks to be an enforceable Agreement and if so, have you had it checked out by Niddy?

I know who Mr. "Check your credit file" is.... but what's the T word?

Yes I do love you all really. I guess that i will keep this one up my sleave at the moment and use it if necessary

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Yes Niddy has checked it out and says enforcable. Cap1 says it is a scanned copy of my original agreement and has my signature on it.

The T word is what Niddy called me yesterday in my ESA thread T**T lol

I have sent a missing prescribed terms though

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Well it's official I HATE YOU ALL. You confuse the hell out of me

Anyway did someone say that in reality the creditors need to produce the original in court and how original is original?
So if someone receives what appears to be an agreement is it worth using this to find out if they do actually have the original

Talking or Mr "check your CRA file" that and so many others talk so much bollox. On that basis I assume that Niddy using the T word must be a term of endearment

I s'pose it must be confusing it times..... but you love us all really...

The original is the original. Not a microfiche copy of an original.... or a re-constituted version of what the original would have looked like but the ORIGINAL that you allegedly signed. In addition to that, if you can remember not signing one, then they can't have one, can they?

Have you received what looks to be an enforceable Agreement and if so, have you had it checked out by Niddy?

I know who Mr. "Check your credit file" is.... but what's the T word?

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Well it's official I HATE YOU ALL. You confuse the hell out of me

Anyway did someone say that in reality the creditors need to produce the original in court and how original is original?
So if someone receives what appears to be an agreement is it worth using this to find out if they do actually have the original

Talking or Mr "check your CRA file" that and so many others talk so much bollox. On that basis I assume that Niddy using the T word must be a term of endearment

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Good to see that you are still going P1, albeit in another place.

Just found my way over here.

I used your letter some months ago with a DCA who had purchased a CC dept. They responded after pressure that it was a photocopy.

I wrote and thanked them for confirming that the original still existed and asked were they aware of the extreme penalties for missleading a debtor under CPUTR.

They must be thinking about it, as they have not written for over a month.

Vint

That's brilliant Vint..... glad you're over here too. I wasn't happy about the kind of advice given on CAG and was directed here by someone.... The rest is history.

Hi P1
after asking under CPUTR if lloyds had an original signed copy of our CCA and getting a letter back saying they had nothing to add to their final response letter

have this week had a letter from them pointing out our acount is in arrears and would we please send £12 to bring it upto date

also we have to make sure all futer payments are on time "or else"
havent a clue where the £12 comes from as we havent paid them for 4 months so would be more than that

They said "please"? Says it all.... just file it away.

I still get a Notification of Sums in Arrears from one of mine. They've been sending them every 6 months for the past 3 years; hoping for a response, I assume.

It'll be stat. barred this year.

[nightwatch]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Hi P1
after asking under CPUTR if lloyds had an original signed copy of our CCA and getting a letter back saying they had nothing to add to their final response letter

have this week had a letter from them pointing out our acount is in arrears and would we please send £12 to bring it upto date

also we have to make sure all futer payments are on time "or else"
havent a clue where the £12 comes from as we havent paid them for 4 months so would be more than that

[vint1954]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Good to see that you are still going P1, albeit in another place.

Just found my way over here.

I used your letter some months ago with a DCA who had purchased a CC dept. They responded after pressure that it was a photocopy.

I wrote and thanked them for confirming that the original still existed and asked were they aware of the extreme penalties for missleading a debtor under CPUTR.

They must be thinking about it, as they have not written for over a month.

Vint

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

When using CPUTR 2008 to confirm if creditor has a copy of the agreement that would satisfy sec 61 and sec 127(3) of CCA1974, can the creditor send you a reconstituted copy as a reply?

Alan

They sometimes try.... but it doesn't answer the question of whether they have the original, which is the whole point of using CPUTR; to stop a company from misleading you.

This needs to be pointed out in a subsequent reply.... I normally do this as part of formal complaint. That way, they have to respond to you in some form or another.... in writing....

[alangee]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

When using CPUTR 2008 to confirm if creditor has a copy of the agreement that would satisfy sec 61 and sec 127(3) of CCA1974, can the creditor send you a reconstituted copy as a reply?

Alan

[BBoo]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

I'm loving it!